The secretary introduced his speech with an overview
of his Listening and Learning Tour and a summary of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He
occasionally deviated from this prepared text.

Today, I want to focus on the challenge of turning
around our chronically low-achieving schools. These
schools have failed to make progress year after year.

In some of these schools, the leadership has been
replaced, but it hasn't made a difference. Many good
teachers have left them and too few good teachers
have replaced them. And many dedicated parents and
ambitious students have also left and found other
options.

The social and physical conditions around some of these
schools are horrific.

They're often unsafe, underfunded, poorly run,
crumbling, and challenged in so many ways that the
situation can feel hopeless.

That is, until you meet the kids, talk to them, and listen
to their dreams of the future. I went to Detroit where
two out of three students drop out. However, the seniors
I met are all going to college. They know what they
want to be and they don't want to waste a minute.

I went to a high school on an Indian reservation
in Montana where 80 percent of the adults are
unemployed. They could name just one student from
their school who had completed college in the past
six years.

I talked to the ninth-graders and they begged to be
challenged. They think everyone's given up on them.
No one expects them to succeed. Yet, despite bleak
conditions, they still believe in the redeeming power
of education.

There are approximately 5,000 schools in this
chronically underperforming category, roughly 5
percent of the total. About half are in big cities, maybe
a third are in rural areas, and the rest are in suburbs
and medium–sized towns. This is a national problem—
urban, rural, and suburban.

I won't play the blame game, but I also won't make
excuses for failure. I am much more interested in finding
ways to fix these schools than in analyzing who's at fault.

States and districts have a legal obligation to hold
administrators and teachers accountable, demand
change and, where necessary, compel it. They have
a moral obligation to do the right thing for those
children—no matter how painful and unpleasant.

Yet, few districts in America have risen to the challenge.
Too many administrators are unwilling to close failing
schools and create better options for these children.
There are some exceptions: Hartford, Pittsburgh,
Denver, New York, Oakland, and D.C.

In a few isolated cases, failing schools were taken over
by charter organizations, such as Green Dot in L.A.
and Mastery Charters in Philadelphia. Some of these
turnarounds are showing real promise.

Finally, in a number of cities and states—Alabama,
Tennessee, New York, Chicago, Miami, and
Baltimore—affiliates of the NEA (National Education
Association) and AFT (American Federation of
Teachers) have taken over failing schools

I closed about 60 schools in Chicago, some for low
enrollment and some explicitly because they were failing
academically. We reopened about a dozen of these
schools with new leadership and staff. Some are run
by the district, and some are run by the Academy for
Urban School Leadership, a non–profit partner. All of
them use union teachers.

Today, these schools are doing much better. Our first
two turnarounds—Dodge and Williams—have more
than tripled the percentage of kids meeting standards in
five years.

Sherman Elementary saw a five-point jump in the
percentage of students meeting standards in the first
year. Harvard reduced absences by five days per student
in the first year. And Orr High School saw a 15-point
jump in attendance in its first year.

Turnarounds aren't easy. It requires you to build trust
with parents. The way it plays in the media can polarize
people. Some adults are still protesting me back in
Chicago for closing schools, but it was the right thing
to do.

The parents in these turnaround schools now talk about
their kids “looking forward to school for the first time,”
coming home and “talking about their teachers.” They
say it's “a totally different atmosphere” even though
it's the same schools with the same kids and the same
socioeconomic conditions.

It gives you hope that anything is possible with enough
effort and determination and the right people. That's
what we need in schools all over America. The fact is there are still way too many schools that don't pass the
“would we send our own kids there?” test.

And some of them, by the way, are charter schools. The
charter movement is one of the most profound changes
in American education, bringing new options to
underserved communities and introducing competition
and innovation into the education system.

All across America we see great charter schools, from
Noble Street in Chicago to IDEA Academy in Texas,
Inner–City Education Foundation and Partnerships to
Uplift Communities in Los Angeles and Friendship
Public Charter Schools in D.C.

What I like most about our best charters is that they
think differently.

There are approximately 5,000 schools
in this chronically underperforming
category, roughly 5 percent of the total.
About half are in big cities, maybe a
third are in rural areas, and the rest are
in suburbs and medium-sized towns.
This is a national problem—urban, rural,
and suburban.

The Denver School of Science and Technology serves
grades six to 12 . They take the sixth–graders on college
visits. Those children spend years choosing a college—
instead of months—and 100 percent of their graduates
go on to four–year colleges and universities.

North Lawndale College Prep is in one of Chicago's
most violent neighborhoods, yet they cut security
staff and hired social workers instead. That extra
personalization is one reason that more than 90 percent
of their graduates are going to college.

I was just at the North Star Academy Charter School
in Newark (N.J.), where they have reversed the
achievement gap. Their kids are outperforming others in
the state and every single graduate was accepted into a
four-year college. These results speak for themselves.

So, I'm a big supporter of these successful charter
schools and so is the president. That's why one of our
top priorities is a $52 million increase in charter school funding in the 2010 budget. We also want to change the
law and allow federally funded charters to replicate.

But the CREDO (Center for Research on Education
Outcomes at Stanford University) report last week
was a wake–up call, even if you dispute some of its
conclusions. The charter movement is putting itself
at risk by allowing too many second–rate and thirdrate
schools to exist. Your goal should be quality, not
quantity. Charter authorizers need to do a better job of
holding schools accountable—and the charter schools
need to support them—loudly and sincerely.

I applaud the work that the Alliance is doing with the
National Association of Charter School Authorizers
to strengthen academic and operational quality. We
need that, and we also need to be willing to hold lowperforming
charters accountable.

I closed three charter schools in Chicago and turned
away more than 100 proposals because they were not
strong enough. There should be a high bar for charter
approval, and in exchange for real and meaningful
autonomy there must be absolute accountability.

In some states—and the CREDO report singles out
Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio and
Texas—accountability is minimal. That's unacceptable,
and instead of hearing it from me or from CREDO,
the education community should hear it from you.
Just as the American Bar Association polices the
legal community and the AMA (American Medical
Association) does the same for the medical profession,
you must get more serious about accountability.

I want to salute the California Charter Schools
Association, which recently announced an
accountability proposal that links charter renewal to
student achievement and growth. We should watch this
closely and see if it can become a model for other states.

We also need to work together to help people better
understand charters. Many people equate charters
with privatization and part of the problem is that
charter schools overtly separate themselves from the
surrounding district. This is why opponents often say
that charters take money away from public schools, but
that's misleading. Charters are public schools, serving
our kids with our money. Instead of standing apart,
charters should be partnering with districts, sharing
lessons, and sharing credit. Charters are supposed to be
laboratories of innovation that we can all learn from.

And charters are not inherently anti-union. Albert
Shanker, the legendary head of the American
Federation of Teachers, was an early advocate. Many
charters today are unionized. What distinguishes great
charters is not the absence of a labor agreement, but
the presence of an education strategy built around
common-sense ideas: More time on task, aligned
curricula, high parent involvement, great teacher
support, and strong leadership.

All of these qualities exist in good traditional schools
as well. We know what success looks like. I see it the
moment I enter a school. It's clean, orderly, the staff is
positive and welcoming, and the kids and the classroom
are the focus. I see award-winning school work on the
walls. I see discipline and enthusiasm in the children.
I see parents engaged and teachers collaborating on
instruction.

The hard part is to replicate those conditions
everywhere, and you need to challenge yourselves and
challenge each other to turn one success into a hundred
and a hundred into 200.

At the same time, when you see charter schools that are
not measuring up don't defend them or make excuses
for them. Admit that the adults in that building, for
whatever reason, just can't get it right and something
has to change.

Children have only one chance for an education. You're
giving them that chance. That's an enormous duty and I
am grateful for every one of you who willingly took on
that responsibility. I'm especially grateful to those of you
who are succeeding.

But I came here today to ask you to do even more.
We need everyone who cares about public education
to take on the toughest assignment of all and get in
the business of turning around our lowest–performing
schools. That includes states, districts, nonprofits, forprofits,
universities, unions, and charter organizations.

I know your typical approach is to start new schools
with a few grades and ramp up over time. I respect that
approach. It's a smart, successful strategy and we don't
want you to stop. The president and I have expended a
great deal of political capital urging states to lift charter
caps and allow more charters to open—and states are
responding. Illinois raised its cap and Tennessee came
back into session to pass a charter expansion proposal.

But over the coming years, America needs to find
5,000 high–energy, hero principals to take over these
struggling schools—and they will need a quarter of
a million great teachers who are willing to do the
toughest work in public education. We will find them
in the union ranks and the charter community, the
business world and the nonprofit sectors. We won't find
them overnight. I don't expect a thousand to show up
next fall. We can start with one or two hundred in the
fall of 2010, and steadily build until we are doing 1,000
per year.

We have great charter networks like Aspire, KIPP,
Achievement First and Uncommon Schools. You're
steadily getting to scale. Today, I am challenging you
to adapt your educational model to turning around our
lowest–performing schools. I need you to go outside
your comfort zones and go to underserved rural
communities and small cities. We are asking states and
districts to think very differently about how they do
business. Your knowledge and experience can help shape
their thinking.

Just as the American Bar Association
polices the legal community and the
AMA (American Medical Association)
does the same for the medical
profession, you must get more serious
about accountability.

We have a lot of money to support this work. Aside
from the $5 billion in the Race to the Top and Invest in
What Works and Innovation funds, we have $3.5 billion
in Title I school improvement grants. We're seeking
another billion and a half in 2010. That's $5 billion
specifically targeting turnarounds, providing hundreds
of thousands of dollars above normal funding levels
for every turnaround school. And with the support of
Congress, we will have even more money in subsequent
years to support this work.

Leading foundations and the national education unions
are both interested in turnarounds. Nonprofits like New
School Venture Fund, Teach for America, the New
Teacher Project and New Leaders for New Schools will
also play a role. In the coming months, we will develop
an application process that spells out exactly what we mean by turnarounds—but let me paint a rough picture for you.

At a minimum, for a turnaround to succeed you have
to change the school culture. In most cases, simply
replacing the principal is not enough. We want
transformation, not tinkering.

We have four basic models in mind. Some will work
better in big cities while others are more suited to
smaller communities. And we're still working this
through, so we welcome your ideas.

The first option is based on what we did in Chicago. We
awarded planning grants in the fall so new principals
and lead teachers could develop and adapt curriculum
to better meet the needs of the students. During the
spring, they begin recruiting teachers and they take over
the school in June.

Under this model, the children stay and the staff leaves.
Teachers can reapply for their jobs and some get rehired,
but most go elsewhere. A few leave the profession,
which is not all bad. Not everyone is cut out for
teaching. Like every profession, people burn out. In our
view, at least half of the staff and the leadership should
be completely new if you really want a culture change,
and that may very well be a requirement of the grants.

Our second option also involves replacing the staff and
leadership and turning it over to a charter or for-profit
management organization. As I mentioned, Green
Dot, Mastery Charters and AUSL are doing this, but
we need more of you to get in the game. I know this
is tough work, but there is an upside. You start with a
school full of kids so there is no student recruiting and
you also get a building, which has been a big obstacle for
many charter operators.

Obviously, you need to build a full staff more quickly,
but that can be done. I am confident that many charter
operators will figure this out and succeed brilliantly. I
also recognize that you won't always succeed. I accept
that, but what I won't accept is a nation that turns its
back on millions of children in failing schools while
successful models are flourishing in the next community
or the next town.

Our third turnaround model keeps most of the existing
staff but changes the culture in the following ways.
Again, we are open to input on this, but at a minimum:

They must establish a rigorous performance
evaluation system along with more support,
training, and mentoring.

They must change and strengthen the curriculum
and instructional program.

They must increase learning time for kids during
afternoons, weekends, and in the summer, and
provide more time for teachers to collaborate, plan,
and strategize.

And principals and leadership teams must be
given more flexibility around budgeting, staffing,
and calendar.

They must use everything we know about how to create
a successful school culture—but do it all at once—with
enough resources to get the job done. This approach
makes more sense in smaller communities where there
isn't a ready supply of new teachers and leaders, and
where the current staff won't have other job options.
This model also gives unions an opportunity to take
responsibility for fixing schools without replacing staff.
We are beginning a conversation with the unions about
flexibility with respect to our most underperforming
schools. I expect they'll meet us more than halfway
because they share our concern. They understand that
no one can accept failure.

But we should also be crystal clear: This model cannot
be a dodge to avoid difficult but necessary choices.
This cannot be the easy way out. It has to work and
show results—quickly—in real and measurable ways
in terms of attendance, parent involvement, and
student achievement.

All of these models assume a year or more of planning.
We should be starting today to build teams that will
take over schools in the fall of 2010. Schools and
districts can use Title I funds right now to start the
planning process.

The last of our four turnaround models is simply to
close underperforming schools and reenroll the students
in better schools. This may seem like surrender, but
in some cases it's the only responsible thing to do. It
instantly improves the learning conditions for those
kids and brings a failing school to a swift and thorough
conclusion.

Now let me also make something very clear:
Closing underperforming schools is a state and
local responsibility. It's up to state and district
superintendents and the political leadership. If they
won't make these choices, I can't force them to do it. My
job is to support the work—provide funding, help define
success, and drive the public consensus toward the
desired outcome. But the people who run our schools,
and the parents who depend on them, must demand
change if they want it to happen.

I came to Washington because I believe
in education. I know that change is
possible. I know we have the talent and
the ideas to succeed. The only question
is whether we have the courage to do
what's right for kids. We've seen what
happens when caution trumps courage.
Nothing changes and kids lose. But
we've also seen the opposite—where
bold leaders have fought the status quo.

And this only works with the full support of the
community—the faith-based, the political, the social
service agencies, the police, the boys and girls club—and
all of the other institutions that serve children and
families. A principal can't do this alone.

I came to Washington because I believe in education.
I know that change is possible. I know we have the
talent and the ideas to succeed. The only question is
whether we have the courage to do what's right for
kids. We've seen what happens when caution trumps
courage. Nothing changes and kids lose. But we've also
seen the opposite—where bold leaders have fought the
status quo.

We've seen traditional public schools where creative and
dedicated educators built strong teams, boosted parental
involvement, and raised student achievement. We've
seen it in charter schools where gutsy entrepreneurs
abandoned lucrative careers, staked a claim in struggling
communities, and now are producing miracles.

There is no shortage of courage in this room. You
wouldn't be here if you weren't risk-takers. So I'm asking
you once again to put your reputations on the line and
take on this challenge. I'm asking for your help because
I believe in you. I'm asking because I am hopeful. I'm
asking, above all, because our children need you and
America needs you.

We may never have an opportunity like this again—this
president, this Congress, $100 billion, and a broad and
growing consensus around the importance of education.
So this is our time and this is our moment. This is our
chance to transform the one thing in society with the
power to transform lives. The path to success has never
been clearer.

The education reform movement is not a table where
we all sit around and talk. It's a train that is leaving
the station, gaining speed, momentum and direction.
It is time for everyone everywhere to get on board.
Thank you.